Rhaegar was disinherited

[The Commentator]

King Aerys could have disinherited Prince Rhaegar easily.  I would like to think he did just that and will search the literature for clues leading to it.  If he did, that meant Rhaegar and Aegon, and whoever else he might have been whelped from that line have lost their inheritance to the throne, in legal terms.  Legality won't determine succession.  Military might will.  However, for the sake of discussion, I think it would be interesting if King Aerys inherited Rhaegar and someone has proof of it. 

[Curled Finger]

Aerys was certainly paranoid and vicious enough to do just that.   But I think at least Jamie would have known if it had happened, being the one guy who had to hang around Aerys for the entire rebellion.  

[purple-eyes]

After rhaegar died , Aerys already skipped aegon and named viserys as heir.

so technically line of rhaegar is already disinherited . 

Crown went to line of viserys.

That also Including jon snow( if he is a legit son as some people wished and believed )

[Lion of the West]

King Aerys can disinherit anyone he wants but it don't mean anything less there's some crime for Rhaegar to be attainted by. As it is, Rhaegar and then Aegon, were Aerys heirs in that order, followed by Rhaenys and then Viserys, followed by Daenerys. Just because Aerys tried to do like Aegon the Unworthy and organize a civil war after his death don't mean that what he tried to plant in some people's minds would have been correct.

[Good Guy Garlan]

King Aerys can disinherit anyone he wants but it don't mean anything less there's some crime for Rhaegar to be attainted by. As it is, Rhaegar and then Aegon, were Aerys heirs in that order, followed by Rhaenys and then Viserys, followed by Daenerys. Just because Aerys tried to do like Aegon the Unworthy and organize a civil war after his death don't mean that what he tried to plant in some people's minds would have been correct.

Absolutely, but as long as people are aware of it, that's an argument Aegon's enemies can use against him. And wars are built on arguments, however weak or strong. 

[Lion of the West]

Absolutely, but as long as people are aware of it, that's an argument Aegon's enemies can use against him. And wars are built on arguments, however weak or strong. 

Then it seems we are in an agreement.

[Shierak Qiya]

Sure.  If Robb's will can stand after his death why not the king of the seven kingdoms' himself.  Both face the same issues.  Namely, proof and the means to enforce it.  Varys would know if such a will existed and surely burned it to ash.  He wants Aegon on that throne.   The one that gets the most support is the one that can hand out the biggest incentives. 

[joluoto2]

Aerys not disinheriting Rhaegar when he hear about the Rhaegar/ Lyanna situation proves that he wasn't just mad, he was also not smart.

[Rhaenys_Targaryen]

After rhaegar died , Aerys already skipped aegon and named viserys as heir.

so technically line of rhaegar is already disinherited . 

Crown went to line of viserys.

That also Including jon snow( if he is a legit son as some people wished and believed )

That Viserys was named heir over Aegon does not necessarily mean that Rhaegar's entire line was disinherited. 

But Aerys does appear to have named Viserys his heir, and Viserys in turn named Daenerys his heir, making Daenerys' claim quite a strong one.

[Ferocious Veldt Roarer]

King Aerys could have disinherited Prince Rhaegar easily.  I would like to think he did just that and will search the literature for clues leading to it.  If he did, that meant Rhaegar and Aegon, and whoever else he might have been whelped from that line have lost their inheritance to the throne, in legal terms.  Legality won't determine succession.  Military might will.  However, for the sake of discussion, I think it would be interesting if King Aerys inherited Rhaegar and someone has proof of it. 

You know, the title of your thread promises heap more than you deliver...

Food for thought: the last known and undisputed interaction between those two was when Aerys entrusted the royal army, and hence the future of the Targaryen monarchy, to Rhaegar. Not exactly a "you are no son of mine" moment.

[Alaynsa Starne]

After rhaegar died , Aerys already skipped aegon and named viserys as heir.

so technically line of rhaegar is already disinherited . 

Crown went to line of viserys.

That also Including jon snow( if he is a legit son as some people wished and believed )

Disinherited, or pushed back in the line of succession? I seriously don't know anything about how this would work, but given that neither Viserys nor Dany are currently on Westerosi soil, wouldn't that make Aegon's claim the most compelling? 

[Nyrhex]

Disinherited, or pushed back in the line of succession? I seriously don't know anything about how this would work, but given that neither Viserys nor Dany are currently on Westerosi soil, wouldn't that make Aegon's claim the most compelling? 

Does'nt matter. Any child of Rhaegar and any child of Aerys can still be used against the Baratheon or "Baratheon" rule. The moment Robert was crowned and accepted oaths of fealty from all of Westeros, the Targ claim was voided by right of conquest, the same as Stark, Lannister, Arryn etc are no longer kings and have been reaffiremd in thier possessions. The same as pretty much any lord's house used to be that of a petty king. Robert I's conquest was as absolute as that of Aegon I's. Tywin still feared baby Aegon could be used by former loyalists as a figurehead, and so even if both Dany and Aegon are in Westeros at the same time, the legality does not matter here. Dany would have had a stronger claim if Aegon was pushed back, but only were they not Targs, and with the self-imposed rule that the head of the family should be a male, distance from the main line making no difference. Viserys would have had more of a legal claim to be head of the Targ family, but he is dead, which gives that title back to Aegon for the name. The legal claim is entirely what a Targ loyalist makes it up to be, considering that it's legality is literally "rules are only valid when they benefit us".

[redtree]

Dany would have had a stronger claim if Aegon was pushed back, but only were they not Targs, and with the self-imposed rule that the head of the family should be a male, distance from the main line making no difference. 

A bit of correction, it should be male and descendant of a male Targs. Descendant of female doesn't count which was why Laenor Velaryon's claim was rejected

[thelittledragonthatcould]

A bit of correction, it should be male and descendant of a male Targs. Descendant of female doesn't count which was why Laenor Velaryon's claim was rejected

But they were still considered, they just chose another option.

 

I don't think there is anything to actually say that female Targ descendants don't count.

[redtree]

" But for many lords of the realm, what mattered most was that the male line take precedence over the female line— "

But they were still considered, they just chose another option.

I meant doesn't count that much especially after GC 101,a council of 100% man, what a surprising result

[devilish]

Aerys not disinheriting Rhaegar when he hear about the Rhaegar/ Lyanna situation proves that he wasn't just mad, he was also not smart.

For the millionth time, It was Rhaegar to cause the rebellion but Aerys's rampage which caused the death of Rickard and Brandon followed by his order to have Ned's and Robert's B heads too. If Aerys disinherited Rhaegar when he was still leading an army than Rhaegar could have in theory sealed some sort of deal with the more reasonable of rebels (Ned and Jon) and marched against his own father. I wont be surprised if the Lannisters and the Martells would have followed him after that

[joluoto2]

Rhaegar wasn't leading an army when Brandon came shouting. At that point Aerys had the golden opportunity to disinherit Rhaegar for his crimes. He didn't take it.

[Jon's Queen Consort]

He could had disinherited him of course he could. My question would be how could someone make it happen. I mean let's say that he told it who will say that to the others and how he can support what he is saying? And even if the Targ supporters follow that Viserys is dead and the only male left is from disinherited Rhaegar. So it would be either follow the order if birth no matter what Aerys might had told or the end of Targ dynasty.

[purple-eyes]

That Viserys was named heir over Aegon does not necessarily mean that Rhaegar's entire line was disinherited. 

But Aerys does appear to have named Viserys his heir, and Viserys in turn named Daenerys his heir, making Daenerys' claim quite a strong one.

he named viserys, this clearly means crown moves to the house of viserys. 

So whole line of rhaegar was indeed disinherited. (Unless viserys or later dany renamed aegon or jon) 

Kind of like maedhros surrendered crown to fingolfin, then the whole line of feanor was dispossessed. 

[Lord Varys]

Aerys didn't seem to disinherit Rhaegar by the time of the latter's death, but there is a chance that he proclaimed him a traitor at an earlier point (explaining why the hell Rhaegar and Lyanna were not at court) but he certainly could have.

In fact, there seem to be regulations how to do disinherit your children since Randyll Tarly frankly tells Samwell that he didn't give him any reason to disinherit him (which is why he feels he has to force him to join the NW). We don't know what you have to do to be disinherited but disobedience to your father and or plotting against him/committing treason certainly should be among the reason why such a thing could be done.